Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Majority of US population growth is due to immigration. Even so, we're not a densely populated country by any measure. Switzerland is far more densely populated, and probably boasts the best natural scenery in the world. Only problem in the US is the water shortage.
People can choose to live in denser development, but land and housing is just so cheap in the south and southwest, and gas prices are still relatively low, so sprawl will continue. Most European cities are densely populated, but have a very high quality of life. We could achieve that, but schools and crime remain a problem in American cities.
On a different note, it's odd how in this section of the forums you have folks arguing against density and population growth, meanwhile in another section there are those arguing that Tokyo is more impressive than New York due to its larger size and population.
Spoken like a true New Yorker! Ever looked at land/housing prices in California, Colorado, Arizona? Ever looked at the size of the lots in those states, particularly in newer builds? Even in Texas, housing is not what one would consider "cheap".
In fact, it's more expensive than Denver or LA! http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Da...market-trends/
"The average listing price for Dallas homes for sale on Trulia was $917,068 for the week ending Mar 04, "
. Most European cities are densely populated, but have a very high quality of life. We could achieve that, but schools and crime remain a problem in American cities.
The banlieues of France and the "estates" in the UK (a word which means something *completely* different in the UK than it does in the USA) would beg to differ.
France did it somewhat differently by putting its ghettoes on the edges of cities rather than the center, but those ghettoes are still quite dense.
You'd run out of water long before either anyway. Only 3% of the land is urbanized, about five times that much has been set aside as parks and wildlife refuges.
Probably 3.37% is a better number (if you exclude mostly rural Alaska). The urban population is 80% of total population
But you are correct about limitations. People do the calculation that there are about 7-8 acres of land per person in the USA (including Alaska) and say there is a ton of land out there.
In comparison Bangladesh has 4.3 people per acre. Or stated another way, Bangladesh has half the population of the USA but USA has 67 times as much land.
Humanity is not bacteria in a petri dish. We are not going to run out of physical room. But the culture of the USA and that of Bangladesh is radically different. It would have to radically change to support that kind of density. Continental USA (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) is about 2 billion acres, and the entire population of Northern and Latin America is less than a billion today, just getting anywhere near 1 person per acre is impossible until the 22nd century.
The total population of the USA in 1900 was 76.2 million and 60% rural. Over the next hundred and ten years, there was a gain of 13.5m in rural population and 219.0m in urban population as people moved to cities and foreign immigrants poured into the country.
The biggest jump in urban population (35 million) came in the 1990's as unprecedented number of illegal immigrants entered the country. With dropping fertility rates in Latin America and fewer economic opportunities in the USA, that number dropped to under 27 million in the last decade.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57792
People have always preferred living in the city when young, then moved to the suburbs when their kids were going to start school. My grandparents moved from the city to suburbs in the 1940s, my parents did it in 1960, we did it in 1978. More room, less crime, and good schools are a lot easier to find in the suburbs. The attraction of the city is mostly the night life,
and the reported increase in appeal to younger people for the cities coincides with a delay of 10+ years in child bearing. As those people reach their mid 30s and have 4 year olds, more of them will be leaving. Meanwhile, the well educated and well-off immigrants from other countries already have school aged kids and are paying cash to buy suburban homes with the best schools, driving up prices.
Spoken like a true New Yorker! Ever looked at land/housing prices in California, Colorado, Arizona? Ever looked at the size of the lots in those states, particularly in newer builds? Even in Texas, housing is not what one would consider "cheap".
In fact, it's more expensive than Denver or LA! Dallas, TX average and median listing prices - Trulia.com
"The average listing price for Dallas homes for sale on Trulia was $917,068 for the week ending Mar 04, "
I knew Dallas was expensive. The huge jump in price from 3 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms is a bit odd, but at least prices may be stabilizing.
Still, I consider cities like Phoenix or Denver in "cheap" America, at least relative to the northeast. Not all cities out there are similarly priced though, I'm aware of this.
Dallas is not that expensive, that data is way wrong. You can mouse around the map and see only 1 zipcode where the median listing price is above $900k, which is the fanciest one in town. The rest are around $250k, and the ones south of downtown are less than $100k.
If it's a slippery slope to see ever-shrinking spaces given higher population in the same amount of land, it's a slippery slope to worry about running out of land without Urban Growth Boundaries.
Dallas is not that expensive, that data is way wrong. You can mouse around the map and see only 1 zipcode where the median listing price is above $900k, which is the fanciest one in town. The rest are around $250k, and the ones south of downtown are less than $100k.
Right. The neighborhood that it seemed to be grabbing the data from was Preston Hollow which is a very expensive, exclusive neighborhood in North Dallas.
No way Dallas is more expensive than San Diego, and we are "only" about $515k for the entire city, one of the most expensive cities in the country.
Our population is still growing - mostly through immigration - but growing nonetheless. Those people have to live somewhere.
For a long time the number of households has been growing faster than the population would indicate and this is because household size is still shrinking. The recession put a damper on the growth in households - it may have even reversed it. But now there's a lot of pent up demand.
Inner cities (of large metros anyway) are expensive because demand is strong and inventory is usually limited. Households in those places also skew smaller than those regions as a whole. That means it takes a lot more units to house 1,000 people in Center City Philadelphia where the average household size is 1.4 as opposed to Cherry Hill, NJ where the average household size is 2.8
In any case, people have to live somewhere and they can't all live downtown. Since the other suburbs are already built out, no one wants increased density, and household size is still shrinking there's really no other place for people to go.
In any case, people have to live somewhere and they can't all live downtown. Since the other suburbs are already built out, no one wants increased density, and household size is still shrinking there's really no other place for people to go.
You are being a little bit fatalistic. Canada is still growing in population, but they have much stricter controls on exurban growth. People find ways to live with density and even take pride in it. Vancouver is the best example.
New York City has seen some renewed life in high density working class housing that was built in the 1960's. Places that once became crack dens, but now have a thriving immigrant culture that is safe for children. LeFrak City (built 1960-69) is a very large apartment development in the southernmost region of Corona and the easternmost part of Elmhurst, a neighborhood in the New York City borough of Queens. The complex of twenty 16-story apartment towers covers 40 acres and currently houses over 14,000 people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
